The Court holding a hearing on the Judicial Review of the Constitutional Court Law, Wednesday, (4/23/2025), with the agenda of examining the petition filed by a number of students from the Islamic University of Indonesia. Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The absence of regulations regarding the representation of women in the composition of constitutional justices is being questioned. Six students have filed a judicial review of Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court (UU MK) to the Court (MK). The Preliminary Hearing for Case 27/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih (panel chair), together with Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah and Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur.

The students are Aulia Shifa Salsabila, Meika Yudiastriva, Safira Ika Maharani, Nadia Talitha Ivanadentrio, Dzaky Alfakhri, and Satrio Anggito Abimanyu. The Petitioners consider Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law which states, "Constitutional Justices are proposed by 3 (three) people each by the Supreme Court, 3 (three) people by the DPR, and 3 (three) people by the President, determined by Presidential Decree" to be in conflict with Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Safira stated that although the Petitioners have not yet met the cumulative requirements to become Constitutional Court justices, they have the potential to meet the requirements to become constitutional justices in the future. Thus, the Petitioners at least have the potential to experience constitutional losses due to the validity of the norm.

Because, the provisions of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law do not clearly determine the number of composition of female and male constitutional justices. As a result, the Petitioners consider that there is legal uncertainty because there is actually and potentially no certainty about the quota of seats to become constitutional justices. Primarily, the Petitioners ask that open space be given for women to take part in determining legal decisions in society, including becoming constitutional justices with a minimum of 30% female representation in the composition of constitutional justices.

"Based on these arguments, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law Number 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law Number 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia conditionally and not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as 'Constitutional Justices are proposed by 3 (three) people each by the Supreme Court, 3 (three) people by the DPR, and 3 (three) people by the President, with female representation of at least 30% (thirty percent) to be further determined by Presidential Decree'," said Safira reading the petition's petitum.

Constitutional Loss

In the Panel Justice's advice, Justice Guntur questioned why the Petitioners did not link the constitutional loss to Article 24C paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. "Regarding the constitutional justice, it is very clear in Article 24C paragraph (3) which is not used in this petition, even though the Court uses the constitution as the basis for examining the norm," explained Justice Guntur.

Meanwhile, Justice Ridwan in his advice provided notes regarding the legal standing of the male Petitioners. "What are their positions and interests and the potential losses experienced by men due to this 30% quota?" asked Justice Ridwan.

Regarding the reasons for the petition, Justice Ridwan also asked the Petitioners to carefully interpret the basis of gender in examining the norms. So that it is not just stating affirmative action by including a 30% quota of female justices from nine constitutional justices. Then Justice Enny in her advice asked the Petitioners to examine their legal standing as students. "The connection is quite far, how can legal standing be convincing of constitutional losses. Reconsider Article 18 paragraph (1) which cannot be separated from Article 24C of the 1945 Constitution and the position of the Constitutional Court is selective official. If granted, what will be the impact and will it not cause discrimination," explained Justice Enny.

Before closing the hearing, Justice Enny stated that the Petitioners were given a time until Tuesday, May 6, 2025 at the latest. The revised petition  can be submitted to the Constitutional Court Registrar's Office to be scheduled for the next hearing.(*)

 

Author        : Sri Pujianti
Editor         : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR              : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Donny Yuniarto

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---